open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Is stoping blobs eve possible
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Avatoin
Posted - 2009.10.28 14:41:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Avatoin on 28/10/2009 14:44:41
From the way I see it, EVE 0.0 has the same problem as RTS games. In the early game, if you're good, small gang would have a purpose to mess with the development of the enemy. But once both sides develop, small forces can't attack unless the target is completely undefended. So the only way (with a few exceptions) is to amass a large force and bulldoze your way through enemy lines. So is it really realistic to try to change the 0.0 combat mechanic (ie SOV) to make it for favorable to use smaller gangs. Because in the end, no matter how much of an advantage your ship has over mind, if I have enough I can overwhelm you to the point that bonuses seem useless.

mchief117
Posted - 2009.10.28 16:56:00 - [2]
 

interesting take on the idea.

personaly i belive the only reasion we have blobs is the range on remote repair moduals. you allways feel safer when fighting if some one near you can fix you up if you take to big of a hit and as such stay near people like that

ropnes
Posted - 2009.10.28 17:10:00 - [3]
 

blobs aren't the problem
making interesting combat mechanics for large fleets is

Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
Posted - 2009.10.28 17:25:00 - [4]
 

Blobs aren't the problem. Making interesting combat mechanics for large fleets, that don't cause the servers to /wrists from the extra stress is.

The issue is lessened with the new sovereignty, since you have to actively do things to develop infrastructure. This will mean more opportunities for small, fast raids. If you are looking for small groups having chances to kill bigger fleets, it happens daily, but you have to actually have better RL skills to be able to pull it off. So either you are really good with strong fits against the enemy tactic or they have incompetent FCs/bad fleet tactics. Usually a bit of both.

Sig Sour
Posted - 2009.10.28 17:45:00 - [5]
 

Honestly low sec used to be a place where small gangs could roam. It has turned into blob or be blobbed as well.

The nano nerf, Falcon nerf and the stealth bomber changes have brought the game into blob rage where numbers are EVERYTHING in a fight. To me it is sad to see the game has gone in the opposite direction of where I would have liked to see it go.

Ships being effective at long range (not where blobs can get an easy warp in on you) enabled few to take on many. Those were the days. Unfortunately the way the game is formatted now, the high road (hard path, few vs many) leads to a cliff.

Azran Zala
Fleet of the Damned
Legion of The Damned.
Posted - 2009.10.28 17:51:00 - [6]
 

Meh just doomsday them... oh wait... ugh DD nerf is going to be so sweet Very Happy

Mike Voidstar
Posted - 2009.10.28 18:00:00 - [7]
 

The mechanics heavily favor blobs, and until that changes, you will have them.

The most effective thing they could do to curtail blobbing would be to fix collision detection and include damage from collisions and collidable weapons fire. It then becomes a bad idea to bunch up, and impossible to shoot through eachother. This solution requires much coding and reworking to accomadate and will probably not happen until the next generation of MMO's comes out with an EVE-like game.

Secondly, they could expand the mechanic of fleet bonuses. If there were certain bonuses granted to small fleets that were lost to other bonuses as the fleet grows, there would be a reason to limit the size of your group. For instance, some sort of stealth bonus for a small fleet, which after a certain number of members (maybe factoring in ship size as well, you can hide a pair of battleships, or a half dozen frigates) which could be replaced by an accuracy bonus (shared telemetry of sensors allows for more accurate targeting through composite sensor readings).

Backed up with frigate and cruiser sized command platforms, and expanded logistics roles beyond floating space clerics, smaller fleets could regain some ground over the blob of doom.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2009.10.28 18:05:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Avatoin
Edited by: Avatoin on 28/10/2009 14:44:41
From the way I see it, EVE 0.0 has the same problem as RTS games. In the early game, if you're good, small gang would have a purpose to mess with the development of the enemy. But once both sides develop, small forces can't attack unless the target is completely undefended. So the only way (with a few exceptions) is to amass a large force and bulldoze your way through enemy lines. So is it really realistic to try to change the 0.0 combat mechanic (ie SOV) to make it for favorable to use smaller gangs. Because in the end, no matter how much of an advantage your ship has over mind, if I have enough I can overwhelm you to the point that bonuses seem useless.


no
its the nature of MMO games.

darius mclever
Posted - 2009.10.28 19:02:00 - [9]
 

The counter to blobs are smart tactics.

be it stealth bombers with bombs devastating blobs. (Goons and friends vs -A- and friends) or smart bubble placement so the enemies get sucked into your bubble right into your 10 smart bombing battleships. (see TRI/PERVS). if you only think of fighting the blob with more people it will just pile up more and more. but there are way deal with them without lots of numbers.

go out and be creative.

Grut
The Protei
Posted - 2009.10.28 20:39:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Avatoin
Edited by: Avatoin on 28/10/2009 14:44:41
From the way I see it, EVE 0.0 has the same problem as RTS games. In the early game, if you're good, small gang would have a purpose to mess with the development of the enemy. But once both sides develop, small forces can't attack unless the target is completely undefended. So the only way (with a few exceptions) is to amass a large force and bulldoze your way through enemy lines. So is it really realistic to try to change the 0.0 combat mechanic (ie SOV) to make it for favorable to use smaller gangs. Because in the end, no matter how much of an advantage your ship has over mind, if I have enough I can overwhelm you to the point that bonuses seem useless.


Theres no real objectives for small gangs other then ganking ships - you need a big fleet to blowup POS etc.

Having targets to let small gangs do a few 100 mils worth of damage if not swiftly countered would go a long way.

Sig Sour
Posted - 2009.10.28 21:22:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Grut
Theres no real objectives for small gangs other then ganking ships - you need a big fleet to blowup POS etc.


How about good ol PVP and fun for an objective?

I could say there is no real objective for blobs except for ganking small gangs...

Aurelius Valentius
Amarr
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2009.10.28 21:40:00 - [12]
 

Here are my two ISKies on the subject.

1. Blobs form for two reasons (imho) - a. that they are adventageous just as stated, a sledge-hammer approach to any combat works more often then not in an unsophisticated world-view, and b. They are easier to manage then a more sophisticated structure that quickly saturates any RL organizational skills and also Game/Server mechanics/load.

2. what could be done: well building off the existing "fleet structure" could create a more workable situation - with a squadron being 10 ships, and a wing being 50 and a fleet being 250 that should cap the fleet at 250, but that is a huge amount... and generally an FC that is trying to direct 250 ships isn't doing any thing but a macro aiming of forces... Primary and secondary.. but wouldn't be able to keep real track of the forces out side that (again imho). What might be better is that the Squadron being the place where primaries and secondaries are called, and making a management system to force that issue on the "man on the ground" v. the "man in the CinC" - I honestly feel that the best situation would be a Squadron working as a basic unit for Leadership bonus, but that a "lead and wing-man" should be the basic unit of tactics... 2 ships (like real fighters today), and 5 pairs - a very viable sized unit for any fleet types being shuttles to supers... I might also force anything larger then a cruiser to work in a "line" formation of 5 ships 2x lines being a squadron (like in WW1 navies) where large ships would bear down in such a group to provide maximum fire-power, but with best postions and the rest of the support ships would move around the "core" lines in a fleet, being made up then of "lines" and "groups". The lines being the primary damage-dealers and the "groups" being all the aother functions of a fleet... it would then stand to reason that a DD Line would also incorporate a native group of tacklers, logistics and other ships as a single mini-fleet, and that would be like an army battalion - the single smallest self-sufficient unit size for field opersations, these then could break-off and reform into the "wing" and "fleet" as we formally know them.

I am not stating how it would come to be, a good amount of the change has to come from the players organizational skills and choices, but the game has to have the mechanics in it to make such choices wise and work, or it's pointless to try to change the system is the system is simply "first-est with the Most-est" philosophy.

But I for one would like to see a fleets in all parts of EVE work more towards what real life fleets do, with organization and purpose, rather then huge zerg fests.

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Posted - 2009.10.29 00:12:00 - [13]
 

Blob's will always exist in eve.... don't try to nerf it... but perhaps give a boost to small gangs..

Originally by: Mike Voidstar

If there were certain bonuses granted to small fleets ...



The idea I can stand behind is to have additional boosts only available to the squad-level. Ideally, they would be aimed to help small gang pvp.... things like a boost to warp speed, a boost to various ewar, etc... Ideally they would be in the form of additional leadership skills, prereq L5, but perhaps they could come as a gang link module designed to fit on a cruiser class ship.

Mike Voidstar
Posted - 2009.10.29 14:55:00 - [14]
 

Quote:
The idea I can stand behind is to have additional boosts only available to the squad-level. Ideally, they would be aimed to help small gang pvp.... things like a boost to warp speed, a boost to various ewar, etc... Ideally they would be in the form of additional leadership skills, prereq L5, but perhaps they could come as a gang link module designed to fit on a cruiser class ship.


This only works if the squads lose the bonus if attached to a larger fleet. So long as a given factor can be applied while in a large fleet, there is no reason to stay small.

This is why I advocated weighted opposing bonuses. Give significant bonuses to small fleets that are progressivly replaced with different bonuses in larger fleets. You don't want to neuter fleets, and you need a really good reason to drop a bonous from a squad just because it becomes attached to a larger body.


GangsterofLove
Posted - 2009.10.29 15:03:00 - [15]
 

The Age of heroic warfare went out with Achilles. Blobs are called "armies". All nations have them and fight that way because it is superior to battle by personality.

You didn't see Churchhill duke it out with ****** on the battlefield with a few of their advisors around. The U.S., Russian and U.K. blobbed his a$$ with bommbers, tanks, what-have-you.

Blobs aren't the problem. Tiny gangs roaming around thinking they can take over systems is.

Valentia Valens
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2009.10.30 14:11:00 - [16]
 

I am not for reducing fleets of of massive force, that's lame - check any EVE fleet video and it's chuck-full of ships... that makes EVE fun... HUGE OPs..

-BUT-

What we need is a way to command and control and organize such fleets, so that they can be managed and used to best effect - that is what I believe the majority of people want... by blob we mean a mindless unmanagable hoard of ships, most of which really don't have effective command and control to make their presence useful or felt at the needed times... when you have something like a dread fleet of nothing but dreads, just blob up and hit a POS it really isn't that much fun to be a part of - you sit and you shot... and no one really does much tactics... we have seen a great deal of this.

But consider - if say any real world force simply put in place 203mm arty on the front lines, and attempted to "seige" it's way to victory - it would certainly meet with a very quick death and lose the war to any combined arms force or a force to which it was ill-equiped of prepared to deal with.


What would help is fleet formations - not sure if bonuses are needed, the organization is probably enough of one, and some means of deligation of command is alreay there in the fleet functions, I think we just need more of the same to a higher degree of function. it's not about less ships, smaller forces or not blobs, its just about making the blob into a organized effective blob... then blob away, but at least the blob would have brains behind it, not... JUMP... Primary...

Forge Lag
Jita Lag Preservation Fund
Posted - 2009.10.30 14:22:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Forge Lag on 30/10/2009 14:32:42
Tbh EvE engineering corps need to focus on developing... machine guns.

Edit: Well, actually, maybe the military corp tacticans could first come up with some advanced technique like... camouflage.

CCP Incognito

Posted - 2009.10.30 15:05:00 - [18]
 

With Sov we are trying to make it so there is combat at different stages of the process of taking a system for different sized gangs.

The reality is that you can always take a larger fight and do stuff faster. But do you want risk your dread fleet to take something down that could be done with a bunch of battle ships?

The other part of the new sov mechanic is you can't have all your ships at one place. If you do then the other side is going to kick your but. We are setting it up so both sides have to defend and attack at the same time. We want fleets to break up into smaller groups, some defending others attacking. Fleets are going to need designated reserve forces to come to defenders rescue if they get attacked by something bigger than they can handle.

So the fleet commander is going to need to do more than just call primary targets. he is going to have to organize wings into roles and assign them tasks. In short the fleet commanders are going to be managing the fight. And the battle will most likely won by the side which has the better commanders, not necessarily the largest fleet.


Aurelius Valentius
Amarr
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2009.11.01 01:30:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: CCP Incognito
With Sov we are trying to make it so there is combat at different stages of the process of taking a system for different sized gangs.

The reality is that you can always take a larger fight and do stuff faster. But do you want risk your dread fleet to take something down that could be done with a bunch of battle ships?

The other part of the new sov mechanic is you can't have all your ships at one place. If you do then the other side is going to kick your but. We are setting it up so both sides have to defend and attack at the same time. We want fleets to break up into smaller groups, some defending others attacking. Fleets are going to need designated reserve forces to come to defenders rescue if they get attacked by something bigger than they can handle.

So the fleet commander is going to need to do more than just call primary targets. he is going to have to organize wings into roles and assign them tasks. In short the fleet commanders are going to be managing the fight. And the battle will most likely won by the side which has the better commanders, not necessarily the largest fleet.




My thought and practical experience says that people will always seek to use the most of what they have over the risk of it, being that the preception is that the risk/isk is less in danger the more of whatever you have going on... which often isn't correct, but its the common preception.

and Set Piece battles are fine for chess and checkers, but for EVE I don't feel that is the correct step, the sandbox is better. It just takes crafting of a system that allows for natural advantage to the side that organizes and commits forces better... ie, many games I have both played and a few I designed (historical) are balanced to that end, sure someone can commit all there forces, and they may take the field if the other side is foolish, but more then not they wane and then are defeated and not with that much damage to the otherside as it becomes apparent that they tactic is a complete failure.

What should be the focus is command and control and the deligation of tasks, the division of tasks to groups (hey - task groups, to use a navy term) and that each group has commanders that know and can perform there jobs in the greater whole. Fleet warfare also should take hours of time, be slow moving and have a initial undicided feel... EVE is very close to WW1 navy warfare - I suggest a look a Jackie Fisher's opinions on Dreadnough warfare and a look at Jutland... That is a very good reference for EVE, and I honestly thought that you all where using it as your model, but I guess not.

I wrote a thesis on WW1 Navies and that battle in the context of historical navy developement, if you want to tap me for it, feel free... would be happy to lend a hand with my favorite game.

Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente
Sigma Special Tactics Group
Posted - 2009.11.01 01:40:00 - [20]
 

Based on the CCP Dev's input, I was correct in assuming that the future of space combat would certainly be leaning toward small fleets and engagements. The new probing mechanic also tell this.

But would it ever be possible to change the jump gate mechanics to randomly dump ships into any point in the target system? It's the gate-to-gate thing that fosters gate blobs keeps roving blobs together.

Eva West
Posted - 2009.11.01 04:04:00 - [21]
 

how about, the more ships around, the longer it takes to get a lock?

call it engine noise interfering with targeting system or some such.

have it reduce with distance.

so if you're in the middle of a big fleet it takes ages to lock friend or foe. if you break your fleet into groups, even on the same grid, you reduce the penalty. if your in a small gang, it's not a problem.






Esiel
Renegade Serenity
Posted - 2009.11.01 06:25:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Robert Caldera

its the nature of MMO games.


Made me Laugh - it has nothing to do with the nature of MMO's and everything to do with the nature of war.

All things equal the side with the most wins. Technological and tactical superiority can help a side with weaker numbers but with enough manpower that too can be over come. The only true way to keep someone with infinitely larger numbers from overwhelming you is with mass destruction (bio warfare, nukes or something similar)

Jekyl Eraser
Posted - 2009.11.01 10:05:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Eva West
how about, the more ships around, the longer it takes to get a lock?

call it engine noise interfering with targeting system or some such.



I like.

Also have the objects in a grid be easier to be probed down if theres more ships. Again because of mass signal noise and radio traffic from the ships.

Have gates lag a bit if theres huge load of ships jumping at sametime. Let 10 ships to jump through every second. So a fleet of 300 would take half a minute to jump through. Maybe only at 0.0 as Jita could become deathtrap for any hauler. Or have the lag only apply if the ships are in the same fleet.

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2009.11.01 10:30:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: CCP Incognito

The reality is that you can always take a larger fight and do stuff faster. But do you want risk your dread fleet to take something down that could be done with a bunch of battle ships?



I think that the new system might achieve this on a strategic level, though perhaps not on a tactical level. More guns is always better than fewer guns when it comes to the grid, the tactical level.

How it plays out in the wilds of TQ, we'll have to wait and see. One thing attacker/defender on either side would want to do is keep deploying STOPs to try and force your self inside the decision cycle of the other side. It could get out of hand if more than one stop can be anchored near a gate at any one time, much less onlined. STOP spam would not be good. I'll try that on SiSi today and see just how silly it could be, if at all.

Valentia Valens
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2009.11.01 20:06:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Valentia Valens on 01/11/2009 20:09:57
We need this as a model for fleet combat... it would make EVE more interesting than - the dreaded (not dreadnoughted) blob... my my... Gets out signal flags and waves them as the coal dust flys (hey DUST514 - proof of coal powered starships)...YARRRR!!

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Don Pellegrino
Pod Liberation Authority
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.11.01 20:43:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer

But would it ever be possible to change the jump gate mechanics to randomly dump ships into any point in the target system? It's the gate-to-gate thing that fosters gate blobs keeps roving blobs together.



ooooooh...

I LOVE your idea. Gates have always been the bottlenecks where things happen. Control the gates and you pretty much own the battlefield. This idea definetly needs to be looked into.


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only